Do you support the War on Terrorism

[bobbylien]

Keep it simple. Do you or do you not support the War on Terrorism as a whole. Yes or no.

[Elrathin]

Do I support the war on terrorism? Yes. Do I support the way the war on terrorism is being fought now? NO.

[Buck Laser]

WHAT War on terrorism?

[Red Dragon]

Well I support the war in Afghanistan ,to an extent though. But I do not support the war in Iraq.

[Viper2]

Absolutely.

Problem is we're divided on how to go about it properly.

“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.�
Abraham Lincoln

"The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed."
—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 23

[piratemonkey]

The "War on Terrorism" is a myth.

It is impossible to wage a war against a tactic.

[piratemonkey]

“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.â€�Â*Â*Â*Â*
Abraham Lincoln


We have a second conservative on this site using made-up quotes.

Abraham Lincoln NEVER said this.
This quote was fabricated by a conservative in 2003.
http://www.factcheck.org/article415.html

[Stoner]

The "War on Terrorism" is a myth.

It is impossible to wage a war against a tactic.


Thank you for your liberal opinion.

[NortheastCynic]

I support the war against Islamic extremism, but as Piratemonkey said, terrorism is not an ideology, it's a tactic. That said I do support the war in Iraq and supported the war in Afghanistan.

-NC

[ECW]

The "War on Terrorism" is a myth.

It is impossible to wage a war against a tactic.


Thank you for your liberal opinion.


Thank you for not having an opinion.

[ECW]

Well I support the war in Afghanistan ,to an extent though. But I do not support the war in Iraq.

The war against the Taliban and al Qaeda is the War on Terrorism. Everything else is war based on the lies that were believed by this Fairy Dust Administration tying every bad guy to terrorism. The terms are not interchangeable.

[potter]

How can you fight a war against a subjective concept?

In addition to those who blow up our stuff,

I'm sure many people in Iraq who are being "terrorized" by our bombs feel we are terrorists.

I'm sure some of the Columbian rebels we've trained and supported in the past to protect oil pipelines have terrorized native villages to keep them in line.

Our own CIA schools people in torture tactics...that's terrorism...

Some people would feel that the color coded threat warnings the government was throwing around a few years ago was a terrorizing tactic.

If you've ever watched COPs it would seem the police are pretty good at terrorizing people.

Some would even go so far as to consider certain tactics used by some industries to sell products to be terrorizing.

One persons terrorist may be another persons saviour.

I support a war against known bad guys who pose real threats. IMO, this war on terror is just an excuse for "forever" war and fat profits for the arms industries.

[Saigio]

Ha! War on terror? Can't exist in a real sense. You can fight terrorists. And that tends to either make martyrs, or angry people.
This "war on terror" is a wonderful little lie. We seem to have forgotten so many facts from history. Have you ever seen the victorious in history called terrorists? It doesn't happen.
One mans terrorist is anothers hero. It is a matter of perspective.
The Colonists, from the Revolutionary War, commited acts of terrorism. But is that how it is taught? No. Why? Because we won. So it seen as acts of heroic rebellion.
If we send a shipment of supplies to another country, and the residents there dump it overboard, they will be called terrorists.

[slappy]

The war worth fighting is the war against global Islamism. It doesn't matter if the tactic is terror or multi-million dollar jets and tanks or political demands for sharia law in liberal democratic countries. Any ideology that seeks to replace liberal democratic values in liberal democratic countries is an enemy of those countries and anyone within them who embraces those values. To the extent that Islamism is such an ideology, it is the enemy. To the extent that Islamism seeks to make war on the citizens of liberal democratic countries, it is the enemy.

The war in Afghanistan, the increased scrutiny of private citizens by liberal democratic governments, and the prosecution of various terror plots in Canada, the UK and elsewhere are parts of that war. The invasion of Iraq was not.

[Red Dragon]

Well I support the war in Afghanistan ,to an extent though. But I do not support the war in Iraq.

The war against the Taliban and al Qaeda is the War on Terrorism. Everything else is war based on the lies that were believed by this Fairy Dust Administration tying every bad guy to terrorism. The terms are not interchangeable.


Actually I think the war in Afghanistan was needed to redeem us in the eyes of the world and also send Islamic extremist groups towards places where the damage they cause could be contained. Not to mention America need some sort of, well I wouldn't call it a victory but they needed something to renew their faith in their country. Iraq on the other hand is a to put it in simple terms a new Vietnam. It does nothing but drain us of resources and blood. Not to mention it further puts forth the idea that America should be able to police the world as it pleases, and that it is above the law. If this goes unchecked it could bring us into an age of imperialism not seen since the days of the British Empire.

[lily]

If this goes unchecked it could bring us into an age of imperialism not seen since the days of the British Empire.



........or stip us of our status as a super power.

[Red Dragon]

Well that's also true, but if America does play it's cards right it does have the possibility to become a very large Empire. Though I would prefer it if America did lose it's statues as the only world superpower. Might make us think a bit before we jump right into a war, or least care about what other countries think of us. That’s a problem with the world today; America is pretty much the biggest kid on the block and can do almost whatever it pleases. If there was another super power to keep the balance or if there were no world superpowers we’d all be on even footing and might have to revolve on diplomacy. But enough of thought on the moral complications of a world superpower, I believe we were speaking of the “war on terror�.

[J316]

Well I support the war in Afghanistan ,to an extent though. But I do not support the war in Iraq.

The war against the Taliban and al Qaeda is the War on Terrorism. Everything else is war based on the lies that were believed by this Fairy Dust Administration tying every bad guy to terrorism. The terms are not interchangeable.


What Lies are you talking about, anyway? I want a straight answer, and no bias.

[Viper2]

The "War on Terrorism" is a myth.

It is impossible to wage a war against a tactic.


And what pray-tell leads you to make this statement :rolleyes:

[Viper2]

“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.â€�Â*Â*Â*Â*
Abraham Lincoln


We have a second conservative on this site using made-up quotes.

Abraham Lincoln NEVER said this.
This quote was fabricated by a conservative in 2003.
http://www.factcheck.org/article415.html


Well, this I was unaware of.

However, the sentiment and intent of the statement is IMHO valid and speaks to the crux of the Democratic patry's actions over the past 3 years.

Perhaps you might consider the following:

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln

"To restore... harmony,... to render us again one people acting as one nation should be the object of every man really a patriot."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Thomas McKean, 1801)

“One of the scariest aspects of our times is how easy it is for glib loudmouths to turn us against each other, weakening the whole framework of society, on which we all depend.�
—Thomas Sowell

“Military success on the ground now demands that we expand the rules of engagement to allow our troops to shoot more of the jihadists, disarm the militias, train even more Iraqis troops to take over security more quickly, and seal the Syrian and Iranian borders. This solution, of course, is easier said than done. The military must use more force against those who are destroying Iraqi democracy at precisely the time the American public has become exasperated with both the length and human cost of the war. Imagine this war as a sort of grotesque race. The jihadists and sectarians win if they can kill enough Americans to demoralize us enough that we flee before Iraqis and Afghans stabilize their newfound freedom. They lose if they can’t. Prosperity, security and liberty are the death knell to radical Islam. It’s that elemental.�
—Victor Davis Hanson

[Viper2]

I support the war against Islamic extremism, but as Piratemonkey said, terrorism is not an ideology, it's a tactic.Â*Â*That said I do support the war in Iraq and supported the war in Afghanistan.

-NC


Then please explain "Jihad"

[Viper2]

Well I support the war in Afghanistan ,to an extent though. But I do not support the war in Iraq.

The war against the Taliban and al Qaeda is the War on Terrorism. Everything else is war based on the lies that were believed by this Fairy Dust Administration tying every bad guy to terrorism. The terms are not interchangeable.


Then please xplain the Lacawana 6, or the Chicago Muslim who was going to set off hand-grenades in shopping malls untill stopped by the FBI to name two.

Or perhaps:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185551,00.html
Three Charged in Plan to Attack U.S. Military in Iraq
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
By Liza Porteus

CLEVELAND — A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted three naturalized U.S. citizens in Ohio for their role in assisting terrorism on U.S. targets overseas, specifically American military personnel and their allies in Iraq.

The indictment, which was unsealed Monday, said the men plotted to kill U.S. and coalition military personnel in Iraq and other countries. On at least two separate occasions, among other charges, at least one of the men verbally threatened to kill or inflict bodily harm on President Bush, the indictment says.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced the five-count indictment during a press conference Tuesday.

"These defendants have been living in the United States, where they have been engaging in weapons training and seeking help in order to kill people abroad, including our troops," Gonzales said.

"Individuals who aid terrorists within our borders threaten the safety of all Americans," he continued. "We are committed to protecting Americans, here and overseas, particularly the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces who are serving our country and striving valiantly to preserve democracy and the rule of law in Iraq."

[Viper2]

Ha! War on terror? Can't exist in a real sense. You can fight terrorists. And that tends to either make martyrs, or angry people.
This "war on terror" is a wonderful little lie. We seem to have forgotten so many facts from history. Have you ever seen the victorious in history called terrorists? It doesn't happen.
One mans terrorist is anothers hero. It is a matter of perspective.
The Colonists, from the Revolutionary War, commited acts of terrorism. But is that how it is taught? No. Why? Because we won. So it seen as acts of heroic rebellion.
If we send a shipment of supplies to another country, and the residents there dump it overboard, they will be called terrorists.


So, what do you suggest - just sit back and do nothing ???

[Viper2]

The war worth fighting is the war against global Islamism.Â*Â*It doesn't matter if the tactic is terror or multi-million dollar jets and tanks or political demands for sharia law in liberal democratic countries.Â*Â*Any ideology that seeks to replace liberal democratic values in liberal democratic countries is an enemy of those countries and anyone within them who embraces those values.Â*Â*To the extent that Islamism is such an ideology, it is the enemy.Â*Â*To the extent that Islamism seeks to make war on the citizens of liberal democratic countries, it is the enemy.

The war in Afghanistan, the increased scrutiny of private citizens by liberal democratic governments, and the prosecution of various terror plots in Canada, the UK and elsewhere are parts of that war.Â*Â*The invasion of Iraq was not.


I agree with everything you stated except Iraq. Saddam was extremely involved with terrorism.

[Viper2]

If this goes unchecked it could bring us into an age of imperialism not seen since the days of the British Empire.



........or stip us of our status as a super power.


That will only happen if the Democrats in Congress continue their ill-conceived attempt to tie the hands of our troops by denying them the funds, and support they need to bring Iraq to a positive conclusion.

[lily]

That will only happen if the Democrats in Congress continue their ill-conceived attempt to tie the hands of our troops by denying them the funds, and support they need to bring Iraq to a positive conclusion.


Grim, what the Democrats are asking for, is at least a years rest between deployments, to be trained properly and the equipment to do the job they were sent there to do. How is that tying anyone's hands? It sounds like reasonable demands to me.

I'm not going to make this personal, but from what I've read a years rest to get rid of the horrors really isn't too much to ask.

I would think that any one would want the troops to be properly trained and equiped. If anything this will make the Iraqis stand up. If it delays sending our men to fight, then someone's going to have to do it. This by no means has anything to do with Bush's surge. Men are already on the ground and they are already funded. It has everything to do with replacing our own men and women who have died or wounded so badly that they can't return and fresh young men are sent in their place.

Or worse yet, permanent bases set up, to start fresh wars.

While I'm on my mini-rant....let's talk about tying hands behind backs a little more. Watching the rare Saturday at work for congress, it occured to me, that our soldiers don't get any days off, let alone a rest between deployments. They don't complain, they do what they are told. They are the finest fighting group in the world, bar none. So why tie their hands? Tell them which side America wants to rule Iraq if they are going to be target practice for a civil war, tell them which side to fight on, Sunni, Shia or any sect inside the sect. Maliki's days are numbered, he does what he is told by both Bush and al-Sadr.Â*Â*If this administration wants to send good men and women to fight, give them a mission. To tell them that they are going to be there until another president is in office, isn't much to go on. Since we're doing most of the fighting anyway and be done with it. It's not bad enough that they have to take a city over and over and we don't know who the real enemy is, pick a side any side, that's the only way we're going to get out, if the powers that be, won't give an inch and talk.

As my mother always told me..........piss or get off the pot. This war can be won, but sadly not by this president. Stay the course isn't working. It's not a strategy, it's a slogan. No matter how you slice it.

[potter]

Well that's also true, but if America does play it's cards right it does have the possibility to become a very large Empire. Though I would prefer it if America did lose it's statues as the only world superpower. Might make us think a bit before we jump right into a war, or least care about what other countries think of us. That�s a problem with the world today; America is pretty much the biggest kid on the block and can do almost whatever it pleases. If there was another super power to keep the balance or if there were no world superpowers we�d all be on even footing and might have to revolve on diplomacy. But enough of thought on the moral complications of a world superpower, I believe we were speaking of the �war on terror�.



Good thoughts there Red Dragon. I'm all for balance.

[Saigio]

Ha! War on terror? Can't exist in a real sense. You can fight terrorists. And that tends to either make martyrs, or angry people.
This "war on terror" is a wonderful little lie. We seem to have forgotten so many facts from history. Have you ever seen the victorious in history called terrorists? It doesn't happen.
One mans terrorist is anothers hero. It is a matter of perspective.
The Colonists, from the Revolutionary War, commited acts of terrorism. But is that how it is taught? No. Why? Because we won. So it seen as acts of heroic rebellion.
If we send a shipment of supplies to another country, and the residents there dump it overboard, they will be called terrorists.



So, what do you suggest - just sit back and do nothing ???


No. I'm not an idiot. I think that doing nothing wouldn't help. I thik We need to be working strategically. Instead, we are just charging all over, often in the wrong places, and doing more harm then good.

[BoogyMan]

No. I'm not an idiot. I think that doing nothing wouldn't help. I thik We need to be working strategically. Instead, we are just charging all over, often in the wrong places, and doing more harm then good.

Would you explain the charging all over and often in the wrong places comment?

[piratemonkey]

Would you explain the charging all over and often in the wrong places comment?


I'll field this one.

Um... Iraq wasn't a significant part of the "War on Terror" (again, a term more absurd than the "War on Drugs") until we invaded and created chaos.

Iraq was the wrong place, wrong people, wrong time to fight the people who are trying to harm us.

[BoogyMan]

Would you explain the charging all over and often in the wrong places comment?


I'll field this one.

Um... Iraq wasn't a significant part of the "War on Terror" (again, a term more absurd than the "War on Drugs") until we invaded and created chaos.

Iraq was the wrong place, wrong people, wrong time to fight the people who are trying to harm us.


The reason I asked, pirate, was that Saigio attempted to make it sound as if we were all over the world and screwing up everything we touch.

I expected the Iraq commentary, but that is one nation.

Where else are we going and doing all the wrong things? Is this another self loathing America can do nothing right skreed?

[piratemonkey]

That will only happen if the Democrats in Congress continue their ill-conceived attempt to tie the hands of our troops by denying them the funds, and support they need to bring Iraq to a positive conclusion.



"Tie the hands of our troops?!?!"

I'm not going to sit back and let conservative make logically stupid comments like this.

Bush is stretching our troops to their breaking point... according to our own military generals.
Bush is sending our troops into harm's way without body armor or armor for their vehicles.
Bush is sending our troops into combat without the training they usually get between deployments.

We are telling him NOT to.

We want to tie Bush's hands so he STOPS sending our troops into danger without the training and equipment they need.
We want to tie Bush's hands so he stops sending more and more troops into a civil war that we can't "win" in any sense of the term.

This "tie the hands of our troops" bullshit is just that, bullshit.ÂÂ*ÂÂ*The good thing is that saying Republicans like Hagel are trying to "tie the hands of our troops" is backfiring like nobody's business.

[Viper2]

lily:
Grim, what the Democrats are asking for, is at least a years rest between deployments, to be trained properly and the equipment to do the job they were sent there to do. How is that tying anyone's hands? It sounds like reasonable demands to me.

Hello old friend, nice to see you again

Oh, btw, it’s Viper2, not Grim Reaper LT.

Okay, let’s see – active front-line combat is not basic training, or combat training where you get restbits. It’s a 24/7/365 situation. Now, the troops in field go on patrol accomplish their mission and return to base and in most cases get to shower, eat and sleep.

I'm not going to make this personal, but from what I've read a years rest to get rid of the horrors really isn't too much to ask.

Okay, having experienced the horrors of war it sounds reasonable, however, how do you accomplish redeployments ????? How many troops that are experienced do you bring home and how many inexperienced troops do you send to replace them ?????

One thought that I had was, a misconception that many have is that the terrorist attacks encompass all of Iraq, when in fact 95% if the fighting is in Baghdad and most of the country is pretty much peaceful. So, it might be prudent to redeploy troops from Baghdad to other areas, and bring in troops from those areas to Baghdad. This in-and-of-itself would give the troops a change of pace.

I would think that any one would want the troops to be properly trained and equiped. If anything this will make the Iraqis stand up. If it delays sending our men to fight, then someone's going to have to do it. This by no means has anything to do with Bush's surge. Men are already on the ground and they are already funded. It has everything to do with replacing our own men and women who have died or wounded so badly that they can't return and fresh young men are sent in their place.

I understand your point – “fresh and young� sounds good – however, it also means “inexperienced� in the field as well.

Murtha is attempting to put restrictions on the $100 million dollar defense bill in order to get it passed. This has everything to do with the “surge�, as well as sending additional supplies of food, water, medical equipment, and combat equipment to replace those already used or destroyed for those troops already “funded� as you say.

Or worse yet, permanent bases set up, to start fresh wars.

I’ve not heard nor read any articles that suggest we are going to establish “US� military bases in Iraq. What I’ve seen is that whatever bases we have established during the conflict “have� and will continue to be turned over to Iraqi troops as soon as they are able to handle them properly.

While I'm on my mini-rant....let's talk about tying hands behind backs a little more. Watching the rare Saturday at work for congress, it occured to me, that our soldiers don't get any days off, let alone a rest between deployments.

On the contrary – I mentioned this above.

As my mother always told me..........piss or get off the pot. This war can be won, but sadly not by this president. Stay the course isn't working. It's not a strategy, it's a slogan. No matter how you slice it.

My parents said “either shit or get off the pot� – same thing I guess.

The only way this war is going to end in a military victory is for all politicians to stop the “partisan� bullshit – come together as we did in WW II and support the troops as a united front – give them all they need and let the Generals fight a military war without having to deal with the political attacks against their CIC, and the unconscionable divisiveness that is prevalent in the US today.

Oh, btw:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/murtha-troop-escalation/

Murtha Plans To Deny Bush Funding For Troop Escalation
Headline should read: "Murtha Plans to Deny American Troops Body Armor, Weapons, ... So, Murtha is going to cut off funding before debating anything, ...

President Bush is widely expected to announce a plan next week to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by at least 20,000. Congress may not cooperate.

In an interview with Arianna Huffington, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, said he intends to block funding for any escalation plan. An excerpt:

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. “The only way you can have a troop surge,� he told us, “is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.� He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a “with Bush anything is possible� look, then said: “Money is the only way we can stop it for sure.�…

[Viper2]

Saigio:
No. I'm not an idiot. I think that doing nothing wouldn't help. I thik We need to be working strategically. Instead, we are just charging all over, often in the wrong places, and doing more harm then good.

First, I never implied you were an idiot.

Now, where exactly are we charging all over the place ?????

[Viper2]

Would you explain the charging all over and often in the wrong places comment?


I'll field this one.

Um... Iraq wasn't a significant part of the "War on Terror" (again, a term more absurd than the "War on Drugs") until we invaded and created chaos.

Iraq was the wrong place, wrong people, wrong time to fight the people who are trying to harm us.


Left field as usual. Sounds like a Kerry "soundbite".

It sounds like you agree with Mr. Ketchup that this is a "law enforcement" matter.

:rolleyes: Oops, you drooped the ball :P

[Viper2]

piratemonkey:

"Tie the hands of our troops?!?!"

I'm not going to sit back and let conservative make logically stupid comments like this.

You seem to like to speak in paradoxes “logically stupid�

Bush is stretching our troops to their breaking point... according to our own military generals.
Bush is sending our troops into harm's way without body armor or armor for their vehicles.
Bush is sending our troops into combat without the training they usually get between deployments.


Who pray-tell controls the purse strings, the President or Congress ????? And don’t forget that Kerry voted against supplying our Armed Forces with the very weapons platforms they are using today, as well as body armor.

We are telling him NOT to.

We want to tie Bush's hands so he STOPS sending our troops into danger without the training and equipment they need.
We want to tie Bush's hands so he stops sending more and more troops into a civil war that we can't "win" in any sense of the term.

This "tie the hands of our troops" bullshit is just that, bullshit. The good thing is that saying Republicans like Hagel are trying to "tie the hands of our troops" is backfiring like nobody's business.

Question, if our troops need reinforcement and resupply - do you give it to them or say sorry - we support you but will not give you the money you need ????? That's BULLSHIT, and that's the Democraptic party's answer.

Also, please recheck the Constitution – the President is the CIC, Congress votes to authorize the President to deploy the troops, and supplies the funds – that’s it. No where in the Constitution does Congress have the authority to determine deployment.

The current plan by the F*&$%# up Democrats is to control to fighting of the war which is un-Constitutional, by putting conditions of the $100 million dollar military spending bill – that’s not their job, plain and simple.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/murtha-troop-escalation/

Murtha Plans To Deny Bush Funding For Troop Escalation
Headline should read: "Murtha Plans to Deny American Troops Body Armor, Weapons, ... So, Murtha is going to cut off funding before debating anything, ...

President Bush is widely expected to announce a plan next week to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by at least 20,000. Congress may not cooperate.

In an interview with Arianna Huffington, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, said he intends to block funding for any escalation plan. An excerpt:

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. “The only way you can have a troop surge,� he told us, “is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.� He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a “with Bush anything is possible� look, then said: “Money is the only way we can stop it for sure.�…

[lily]

Hello old friend, nice to see you again

Oh, btw, it’s Viper2, not Grim Reaper LT.

Old habits die hard, Viper. I've asked for an embarrassed smilie just for me. The text seems to be messed up tonight, so I can only reply to what I can understand.


Okay, having experienced the horrors of war it sounds reasonable, however, how do you accomplish redeployments ????? How many troops that are experienced do you bring home ?????

I've already explained how re-deployments should be done. After 4 years of training, I would think that the Iraqi army is more than able to replace the United States soldiers who have died or are maimed so badly that they can't go back for their second or third deployment.

how many inexperienced troops do you send to replace them ?????

This is what Murtha is trying to stop. I realize that you are not happy with the new congress, but I would think as a Vet you would want what was best for the soldiers. Why should we send in in-experienced troops is what Murtha is saying.

One thought that I had was, a misconception that many have is that the terrorist attacks encompass all of Iraq, when in fact 95% if the fighting is in Baghdad and most of the country is pretty much peaceful. So, it might be prudent to redeploy troops from Baghdad to other areas, and bring in troops from those areas to Baghdad. This in-and-of-itself would give the troops a change of pace.

I think your %95 is a bit high. I'd be willing to go %50, although I can't understand why we are wasting US soldiers that you want to re-deploy to Baghdad.......or what soldiers are doing in towns that are peaceful?

Murtha is attempting to put restrictions on the $100 million dollar defense bill in order to get it passed.

Sorry, it's Congress' job to do this. The blank check is over. No more out of control spending without accountability, no more billions missing, no more crumbling buildings, no more money being spent on shoddy goods. Our Army deserves better.

And don’t forget that Kerry voted against supplying our Armed Forces with the very weapons platforms they are using today, as well as body armor.

Are you still trotting out that old debunked thing? (http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html)

[BoogyMan]

And don't forget that Kerry voted against supplying our Armed Forces with the very weapons platforms they are using today, as well as body armor.

Are you still trotting out that old debunked thing? (http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html)


Umm, Lily, that site shows Kerry DID vote no on that legislation. He voted no on the entire spending package, which had 300 million for body armor.

[piratemonkey]

Who pray-tell controls the purse strings, the President or Congress ????? And don’t forget that Kerry voted against supplying our Armed Forces with the very weapons platforms they are using today, as well as body armor.

Um... Viper...

Democrats have been in control of Congress for about 1.5 months now.

The deplorable readiness state of our military can only be blamed on the Republican controlled Congress of the past decade.

[Elrathin]

Umm, Lily, that site shows Kerry DID vote no on that legislation. He voted no on the entire spending package, which had 300 million for body armor.


I seriously think that vote was done out of ignorance Boogy. Kerry's track record in the senate is horrid and I would suspect that he really didn't know what the hell he was voting on. That doesn't excuse it, but this is really one of those things I believe was done out of ignorance and not intentional malice.

Kerry needs to be voted out of the senate, I have no problem with that given his idiotic record of voting and lack of votes for that part.

[potter]

And don't forget that Kerry voted against supplying our Armed Forces with the very weapons platforms they are using today, as well as body armor.

Are you still trotting out that old debunked thing? (http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html)


Umm, Lily, that site shows Kerry DID vote no on that legislation.Â*Â*He voted no on the entire spending package, which had 300 million for body armor.



Which leads me to ask what else was in that spending packege that he was really voting against?

This would all be neat and clean if it were just troop funding he was voting against, but the crooks in washinton use spending bills to tack on all sorts of self serving spending. Then if you vote against all the pork you're called un-american because of the one portion of the bill which was worthwhile.

Again, I would look at the pork attached to the bill for motivation on voting the bill down.

[NortheastCynic]

Then please explain "Jihad

Jihad is an Islamic term, literally meaning struggle in the way of God and is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it occupies no official status as such.Within the realms of Islamic jurisprudence, jihad usually refers to military exertion against non-Muslim combatants. In broader usage and interpretation, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can refer to striving to live a moral and virtuous life, to spreading and defending Islam, and to fighting injustice and oppression, among other usages.
Like I said, I support the war against Islamic extremism or against Islamic terrorISTS but you can't fight terrorism, it's a tactic. It would be like saying "I hope the Jets beat football when they play the Patriots on Sunday." Hate the player, not the game, or more accurately, defeat the player, not the game.

-NC

[NortheastCynic]

Then please explain "Jihad

Jihad is an Islamic term, literally meaning struggle in the way of God and is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it occupies no official status as such.Within the realms of Islamic jurisprudence, jihad usually refers to military exertion against non-Muslim combatants. In broader usage and interpretation, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can refer to striving to live a moral and virtuous life, to spreading and defending Islam, and to fighting injustice and oppression, among other usages.
Like I said, I support the war against Islamic extremism or against Islamic terrorISTS but you can't fight terrorism, it's a tactic. It would be like saying "I hope the Jets beat football when they play the Patriots on Sunday." Hate the player, not the game, or more accurately, defeat the player, not the game.

-NC

[underdawg]

The War on Terrorism sounds a bit like the War on Drugs. They are both a bit vague, they go on forever, they never really accomplish anything , and they both cost lots and lots of money.

[lily]

Which leads me to ask what else was in that spending packege that he was really voting against?

This would all be neat and clean if it were just troop funding he was voting against, but the crooks in washinton use spending bills to tack on all sorts of self serving spending. Then if you vote against all the pork you're called un-american because of the one portion of the bill which was worthwhile.

Again, I would look at the pork attached to the bill for motivation on voting the bill down.


Potter, I'm not much of a Kerry fan, since the way he acted at the Innageration. I'd bet right along with you that there was pork attached, but the links at that site no longer work. Here though is one reason he voted against it. (http://www.factcheck.org/article177.html)

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's
vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation
bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of
body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor
funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.

Missing Context

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call
specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he
opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and
space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now
Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed
canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As
Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Â*Â*Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to
me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . .
. I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We
don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the
AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and
$200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of
further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81
Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16
aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons,"
the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on
terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself
would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who
was president at the time.

[BoogyMan]

Potter, I'm not much of a Kerry fan, since the way he acted at the Innageration. I'd bet right along with you that there was pork attached, but the links at that site no longer work. Here though is one reason he voted against it. (http://www.factcheck.org/article177.html)

The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's
vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation
bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of
body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor
funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.

Missing Context

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call
specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he
opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and
space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now
Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed
canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As
Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to
me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . .
. I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We
don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the
AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and
$200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of
further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81
Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16
aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons,"
the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on
terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself
would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who
was president at the time.


So because Cheney opposed a weapons system in the past you are trying to equate him with Kerry's no vote on a bill that included armor for the soldiers on the ground in Iraq?

Kerry voted no on a bill he (supposedly) knew contained 300 million in armor for our soldiers.

[piratemonkey]

Who pray-tell controls the purse strings, the President or Congress ????? And don’t forget that Kerry voted against supplying our Armed Forces with the very weapons platforms they are using today, as well as body armor.

OH!Â*Â*I know!Â*Â*I know!

Congress!Â*Â*You know, the one that's been run by Republicans for the last decade or so.Â*Â*That one.

Trying to blame the lack of readiness on a single, minority Senator is absurd.


Question, if our troops need reinforcement and resupply - do you give it to them or say sorry - we support you but will not give you the money you need ????? That's BULLSHIT, and that's the Democraptic party's answer.

Do you REALLY think that if funding was cut off for the WAR, that our soldiers would be sitting in Iraq naked and hungry.

That's so ridiculous, no rational person would believe it.

Show me anywhere, anytime that a Democrat has proposed leaving the troops in Iraq and cutting supply funding for them.

Absurd.


The current plan by the F*&$%# up Democrats is to control to fighting of the war which is un-Constitutional, by putting conditions of the $100 million dollar military spending bill – that’s not their job, plain and simple.

Show me where it says in the constitution that conditions can't be put on funding.

Better yet, show me an appropriation bill that ever HASN'T had conditions placed on it.

If you really think that conditions aren't in appropriation bills, you have a whole lot to learn about how the US government works.